Testing...

Just refound this

Sheesh... stupid semester...

Wow, it's been awhile huh. Well I can definitely blame biochemistry for my sporadic updates. Fortunately that's all behind me and all I have left is 11 hours and then I graduate! YEAH!

...of course then it's a year working at a hospital, and then applying for med school for the 1st time because I decided not to take the MCAT last year since I was SO definite on going to graduate school last year and decided to cut off my other options... BOOO!!

Either way I should have smooth sailing on updating this blog more often then in the past for the next year or so. After that who knows I might not even get out of the house for the next 8 years if all the horrors stories about medical school are as real as people say.

Anyway onward to some things I wanted to say...

#1 The name will change. As much as I liked the generic name of Baseball Report since I could cover everything about baseball if I so desired I've decided that it was too similar sounding to the amazing Newberg Report website that I should try to come up with something different. Unfortunately I haven't come up with a good name yet but it will come... trust me.

#2 The site will continue to be a hodgepodge collection of baseball analysis and will continue to focus on trades/FA signings. I will still plan to do random stuff like the Whatever Happened To... segments. Ideally if I can post consistantly I'll be able to do all the FA analysis from this day forward and tons of analysis reporting of what baseball information really matters... that's ideally though you might want to come back next week or so to see if I can actually do that.

Well that's that. I'm currently packing my bags to go back home and probably will start regularly updating this Thursday... that'll be test 1 if I update by Thursday maybe I can live up to my expectations this time.

I'm going to have to be away awhile

Yes I know I just began updating again, but I already had this trip planned so I can't just not go because of the trading deadline.

When I get back mid-next week expect topics about every trade that went on while I was gone plus my feelings on the Carlos Lee deal.

Stanton moved... whoop de doo... 7/28 trade

Giants trade: Shairon Martis

Nats trade: Mike Stanton

Stanton is old... 40 years old in fact. His idol is Jesse Orosco the god of left handed one out guys. Unfortunately Stanton has already beginning to succumb to the treacherous beast of time as he no longer is the dominant setup guy he was in times of yore. Instead he is a slightly below average lefty one outer who will only get worse as time goes by.

Shairon Martis on the other hand is a decent prospect who although not doing great this year still is showing quite a bit of promise striking out 66 batters in his 76 innings of work and maintaining a 3.62 ERA.

Final Verdict

San Francisco - 2.5 Riley points - well they accomplished their goal of getting older...

Nats - 9 Riley points - sure Martis might never throw a pitch in the major leagues but whenever you can trade a scrub for potential you do it.

Betemit/Baez deal of 7/28

Dodgers Trade: Danys Baez and Willy Aybar

Braves Trade: Wilson Betemit

Well the Braves wanted to upgrade their bullpen, and evidently thought Baez would help. Baez after all three years ago was regarded as a decent young closers in baseball. Unfortunately although he once had the peripherals worthy as a decent closer he now lacks them. Look at his numbers in the past http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/B/Danys-Baez.shtml and you'll see an unusal trend from the time he entered the majors until last year that even though his ERA consistently went down, his strikeout rate fell every year. This year he has continued the trend to 5.25 batters in 9 innings which is very mediocre for a pitcher, especially a pitcher who only works one inning a game. According to DIPS theory pretty much everything except strikeouts, walks, and homeruns are not dependent on a pitcher but rather the defense and luck, and if Dips theory is correct Baez had been relying more and more on luck every year, and this year the K rate just finally got to such a poor level that it's finally caught up with him. Nowadays he is what he is... a league average relief pitcher who had past success as a closer and is getting the paycheck of a top setup guy or a closer. Unless Baez can improve that K rate or just get some more luck on his side he isn't going to really impress the Braves.

Everybody acts like Willy Aybar is a future utility player in the making. Maybe I'm crazy but his numbers to me show he has decent power for a middle infielder and an okay eye, and although average is very variable as a stat he sure looks like he can consistantly hit the ball. Honestly he reminds me more of Wilson Betemit then anybody else in baseball, with his upside being Carlos Guillen.

Wilson Betemit is finally going to get an everyday job. I'm proud of him as he definitely deserves a shot. However basically what he is, is a one year older, more established version of Willy Aybar who will probably be a league average SS for the next decade.

Final Verdict:

Atlanta: 6 Riley Points - Traded away Betemit for his clone (Aybar) and an expensive league average pitcher who may regain his greatness if he can strike people out again. If Baez didn't cost so much this would warrant an 8 or so.

Dodgers: 4.5 Riley Points - Got rid of an expensive pitcher for a young guy just ready to start. If only they didn't trade away an exact replica of the guy they got.

--Riley Points are given on a scale of 1-10 with 1 being a terrible trade with no redeemable qualities, and 10 will be an amazing deal that has no negative quality to the trade--

Trading Deadline Central 7-28 the David Bell Trade

I've decided that trades are something that really interest me, so I'm going to cover all of the trading deadline deals starting with today. First on the agenda is the seemingly minor David Bell trade. Tomorrow I'll give an analysis over the Carlos Lee/Coco deal, and the Betemit/Baez one. Plus I'll try to get any other deal that comes along.

Phillies trade: David Bell
Brewers trade: Wilfrido Laureano

Wilfrido Laurenao is a 22 year old A-ball relief pitcher with a 4.10 ERA in 29 games this year. I've heard many places call him an average A prospect. Now I apologize to Laurenao's parents for my bluntness, but he is much worse then an average A ball prospect. Relief pitchers in the low minor leagues very rarely amount to anything, since a player who a team feels will amount to something will either be a starter to get a lot of innings to ready themselves for the majors, or in rare instances be a closer so they can be in pressure situations. Sure he has a decent strikeout rate (62 K's in 63 2/3rds IP) but his walk rate is below average (36) and his amount of homeruns given up is frightening for such a low amount of innings (8). If Laureneo ever makes it to the majors I will be shocked. He is organizational filler, nothing more.

Bell is what he is... a below average 3B with a little power (very little), terrible contact, an average eye, and a 4.5 million dollar salary. He's a decent backup, but if he's starting on your team then it's a pretty good sign your team isn't going anywhere.

Well the Phillies got what they want. By trading David Bell they'll save over a million dollars. The problem for the Phillies comes from who replaces Bell in the lineup, as there are no top prospects in the minors waiting for the callup. Early reports say that Abraham Nunez will take his place. Judging from previous years, Nunez won't even be able to get close to match Bell's mediocre numbers. So if Nunez becomes the starter the Phillies would regret the loss of production from Bell.

The other option in the Phillies team is a career AAAA guy named Chris Coste. Sure his primary position is catcher, but he has played 3rd base before in the minors so he should be in the discussion. Even though he never really has impressed in the minors, he has an interesting past where he spent four years in the Northern Independent League before ever even getting signed by a team. When he finally got signed by a big league team he performed relatively well in AA action, of course by then he was 27 years old. Since then he has bounced from the Indians, to the Red Sox, to the Brewers, and finally to the Phillies. Looking at the numbers of the 33 year-old journeyman it's obvious that he should be given the chance over Nunez. He's got some power, he actually has a decent average and his eye looks about average. I'm not saying he would be great if getting a job, but I think the Phillies at least have David Bell Jr. on their hands... even though this guy is older then Bell.

With the Brewers all I can say is that this trade must imply either Koskie's or Week's injury is much more serious then they've let on, or they just felt they had to get the insurance in case something does go wrong with their injury recovery. Well for backup insurance, Bell was a pretty decent acquisition that costed nothing except the money it takes to pay him. It's just the Brewers better hope they don't have to use him anymore then a typical bench player.

Final Verdict

Brewers: 7.5 Riley Points - Insurance for nothing except money. Nothing wrong with that.

Phillies: If Nunez gets the job... 4 Riley Points - save money but will actually miss Bell's production.
If Coste wins the job... 8.5 Riley Points - save money and replace Bell with his twin who has a history that should make a couple of interesting minutes on Sportscenter.

Sure this won't send either team to the playoffs but this is definitely a deal that can help both teams. If only the Phillies take the risky choice instead of the known mediocrity. Come on Phillies... do the right thing.

--Riley Points are given on a scale of 1-10 with 1 being a terrible trade with no redeemable qualities, and 10 will be an amazing deal that has no negative quality to the trade... of course this isn't certain because every trade can have something go wrong... (or go right) that nobody could expect--

Sheesh I've got to update more...

Well I've decided to actually start updating this again. I have a lot of ideas to put on here but unfortunately I can't find the correct data I need freely available... so I can't prove anything about it.

Theory 2 on Sean Burroughs

Theory 2: Early Maturity Factor

Remember back in junior high when only one or two kids had went through their growth spurt? Even though these kids may not have been much of an athlete beforehand, these early spurters suddenly had a huge advantage compared to their peers in sports like basketball. Until everybody had their growth spurt these kids had the height advantage and could dominate. However, whenever their height advantage was gone usually these kids weren't as good as everybody else because they never learned how to do correctly certain aspects of the game like jumping for rebounds. So an early growth spurt in basketball could be destructive if the person can't maintain the height advantage. (by say growing to 6 feet 10 or something.)

Baseball is similar in that an earlier developed body can allow a player to develop power and bat speed at an earlier age. This very well may explain Sean Burroughs's failure in the major leagues as he was an early spurter. When Sean Burroughs was 12 years old he was the star of the Little League World Series, and was probably the best 12 year old baseball player at that time. Unfortunately for Sean his body had already gone through puberty and he was probably as developed as most 15 or 16 year olds. He really was a man among boys.

Would you believe in the 58 years the of Little League World Series has been around only 29 have made it to the major leagues? Besides that Sean Burroughs is already one of the most successful ones to have graduated. Sounds like Little League success usually will develop into major league failure.

Most major leaguers hit their peak around 26-29, when their skill level playing the game is developed enough to meet their best physical shape. With Burroughs you really have a double whammy. A) He matured earlier so his physical peak was probably at a younger age then normal and B) Skills develop with time playing the game, (I'm not talking about skills like walks) Burroughs had been playing for years at a high level and probably has reached his maximum level of playing the game years before most players do. If A & B are both true then Burroughs probably reached his peak around 22 or so which kind of follows his trend he has displayed.

One last thing that might have happened is that since Burroughs developed earlier then most players he just was able to coast during his high school and minor league careers with his naturally developed talent. This kindof goes with my first theory as his natural talent might have been good enough to make it to the majors no problem but now that he is up against the best players in the world he is actually going to have to adapt. Like the early growth spurter in junior high basketball, Sean just didn't learn to play baseball the best way possible for him and now that everyone has caught up with him he has to adapt or he won't ever be anything special.

Whatever Happened to... Sean Burroughs (IDT)

Back in 2002 there were two top 3B prospects in baseball: Hank Blalock and Sean Burroughs. While Hank Blalock played poorly in his first experience in the bigs he became an All Star in 2003 and played well in 2004. Although 2005 was a dissappointment it's safe to say that he has at least proved that the hype surrounding him was warranted. Burroughs on the otherhand was had just as bad experience his rookie year but really hasn't improved any. In fact so far in his career he has totaled just 11 HR. Before 2002 he was compared often to George Brett, but now it looks like his potential is somewhere along the lines of Dave Magaden... and that's if he can begin to take more walks. What happened? Why has this potential star sputtered so bad in the majors?

Well I have a couple of theories... the first one I will cover today and I'll have the second one up tomorrow.

Theory #1: The Inverse Dad Theorem

Sean Burroughs like everybody has a dad, but unlike most of us Sean's dad, Jeff, just so happened to play in the majors.

Jeff Burroughs back in 1969 was the first overall pick of the second version of the Washington Senators. By 1973 after the Senators moved to Texas Jeff firmly implanted himself in the Ranger lineup by hitting 30 homers with an .847 OPS in an otherwise anemic Texas lineup. In 1974 Jeff lived up to his full potential by winning the AL MVP award and having a .901 OPS. Going into his age 24 season amazing things looked to be in store for Sean's dad... then problems started.

Jeff got homer happy. He began to want homeruns and decided to try to pull every ball he could to take advantage of Arlington Stadium. Unfortuantely this destroyed his contact, hurt his plate discipline, and even hurt his power in the process. For the next two years his numbers were terrible. (BA: .226, .237. HR: 29, 18) The Rangers then decided to trade him away to Atlanta where he regained his old swing for a couple of years (.882 OPS in 1977 .961 OPS in 1978) before injuries caught up to him and his numbers went south again.

Well what does this have to do with Jeff's son Sean. Everything. Now most of the time the son turns out similar to their father (Example: Bobby Bonds, Barry Bonds... difference in quality but they're still the same type of player) but in many instances whenever the father has a noticiable flaw in their career they try to make sure their sons don't have a similar problem. (hence why I call this the Inverse Dad Thereom) Even in players as similar as Bobby and Barry Bonds you still see this phenomenon. (Bobby had a problem with striking out... Barry doesn't seem to have that problem does he?) The problem with Sean is he is not willing to attempt to pull the ball to increase his homerun power, and I think it all goes back to his dad's experiences.

If your dad's a ballplayer you are going to listen to him when he tries to give you advice about baseball. I firmly believe that Jeff during those years in Texas learned his lesson about pulling the ball and while his son was growing up Jeff constantly told Sean to avoid pulling the ball. So after Jeff spent all of Sean's life telling him of the dangers of pulling the ball this got ingrained into Sean's head that pulling the ball is not a great idea for a ballplayer to do. Since Sean was such a naturally gifted athlete he never really had to adapt to pull the ball for power until he reached the majors. Unfortunately, for Sean to succeed in the majors he needs to learn to pull the ball occasionally to get that extra oomph in his bat, but with his dad's advice still floating in his head he just can not accept the fact that he needs to make those adjustments.

I apologize

School has really taken over my life the past month and has been why I haven't been able to update during that time. Fortunately all of my major tests are done for the next few weeks and I have some free time again so I can finally begin updating again.

Next time I see a time coming when I may not be able to update for a while I'll try to post about it ahead of time to warn everybody.

Bruce Sutter

Bruce Sutter made it to the Hall of Fame. While I can say his election won't deteriorate the "greatness" of the Hall of Fame (the election of the Rube Marquards and Ray Schalks did that years ago) he definitely isn't even close to what I would call great, nor is he any better then many of his contemporaries that haven't been elected yet to the Hall of Fame... such as Goose Gossage. The only merit that sets him a part from your standard good closer is the fact he popularized the splitter, but there is no indication that he was even the first person that used it.

Look at these statistics...

Player A: IP: 1809 1/3 Saves: 310 ERA: 3.01 WHIP: 1.23 (1972-1994)

Player B: IP: 1041 Saves: 300 ERA: 2.84 WHIP: 1.14 (1976-1988)

Player C: IP: 764 Saves: 330 ERA: 2.93 WHIP: 1.14 (1989-2000)

Player D: IP: 1128 1/3 Saves: 303 ERA: 3.30 WHIP: 1.24 (1982, 1986-2000)

Player E: IP: 1289 1/3 Saves: 478 ERA: 3.03 WHIP: 1.26 (1980-1997)

Which one of these pitchers deserve the Hall of Fame? To me they are all pretty much on the same level... Player A pitched for an extremely long period of time and pitched tons of innings, unfortunately this resulted in his rate stats being hurt because of his long decline phase. Player B and C did very good but for only a short amount of time before they retired... hence their rate stats aren't hurt by a long decline phase. Knowing player C played in a much tougher hitting era I'd say he was slightly better then Player B, (and possibly is the best of them all) but again not by much. Only one of these players is definitely worse then the others and that is player D, but he's certainly comparable to the others. Player E despite having tons of saves had his WHIP and ERA hurt by the decline phase...

Is it fair that only one of these players are in the HoF and two of the players fell off of the ballot with only a couple of votes?

Player A = Goose Gossage - got 64.6% of the votes
Player B = Bruce Sutter - 76.9% of the votes - new Hall of Famer
Player C = John Wetteland - only received 4 votes (tossed off ballot)
Player D = Doug Jones - only recieved 2 votes (tossed off ballot)
Player E = Lee Smith - 45% of votes

How can it be fair that a player who was just as good as the player elected to the HoF get such a small amount of support that they fall of the ballot? This just doesn't seem right.

Of course, I would have just made it fair by not electing any of them.

This year the nominations for the Hall of Fame were substandard. Jim Rice, and Bert Blyleven are the only two I could ever see as being at least borderline for the Hall of Fame. Out of Rice and Blyleven the only one I would think of voting for would be Blyleven, but even then there would have been only a 50/50 chance I would have voted for him.

The Bruce Sutter vote just proves there needs to be a baseball IQ test before handing out the Hall of Fame ballots.

Rock, Paper, Scissors

Want to play the classic game Rock, Paper, Scissors? Ok but we'll play under my rules...

Nats Beat Padres

Rangers Beat Nats

Padres Beat Rangers

How did I come up with this? Well simple, because that's the way the trades between these three teams have went this offseason. Suprisingly though on name recognition the opposite team won every deal, which is quite unusual and is why I got interested in this phenomenon

The first trade between these three teams this offseason was the deal involving the Nationals and Padres.

Nats Beat Padres

Nationals trade: Vinny Castilla
Padres trade: Brian Lawrence

Vinny Castilla definitely has a name, but once you get past that he simply doesn't look that great. Outside of the hitter's paradises in Colorado and Houston his highest OPS since 2000 is .771. Using those same restrictions his average yearly OPS since 2000 is .697. To put this is perspective, Sean Burroughs, the player he is set to replace from the Padres, has put up an OPS of .700 since taking over the job in 2002. Since Petco Park in San Diego is considered just as much as a pitcher's park as Washington I don't see how Vinny can be considered any better than his predecessor.

Besides the guy is going to be 38 years old in July...

Brian Lawrance had a bad year last year. In a pitcher's park with a 4.83 ERA and a 1.37 WHIP it wasn't awful but it was definitely below average. However, throughout his career he has been an average to above average pitcher. His career numbers of a 4.11 ERA and a 1.32 WHIP are not ace numbers by any means, but they would look decent at the back of any major league rotation. Plus he's still in his prime at 30 so he should be effective for a few more years... unlike Castilla.

Rangers Beat Nats

Rangers Trade: Alfonso Soriano
Nats Trade: Brad Wilkerson, Terrmel Sledge, and Armando Galaragga

Soriano is a part of the 30-30 club and is a former Yankee and hence has been overrated to great extremes by the media. Alfonso Soriano has lots of flaws: he can't take a base on ball (career .320 OBP), his defense is noted as being inconsistent not only by stats but by people watching the game, and he goes through many lapses where he refuses to hustle. Sure he has tons of power but look at the OPS comparisions between Soriano and Wilkerson...

Soriano career OPS - .820
Wilkerson career OPS - .817

Hmm... they look pretty similar. When you consider that Wilkerson has played in huge pitcher's parks his whole career and Soriano at least the past two years has played at Arlington it would not entirely be crazy to say that Wilkerson is the better player basing it on OPS.

When you include the defensive values of the two players and salaries, to me the deal would be in Texas's favor just if it was Soriano for Wilkerson. However not only did Texas get Wilkerson but they also received Sledge and a pitching prosect, Galaragga.

While Galaragga has quite a bit of potential he is pretty much a wildcard that can't be guaranteed to be anything quite yet. Sledge at worst is a good 4th OF and at best could be a Wilkerson clone himself. Yes he has the same characteristics as Wilkerson in that he walks a decent amount (not as much as Wilkerson but still a respectable amount) has some power and some speed. Now do I really think at 29 years old he is going to make the jump to be as good as Wilkerson? No, but I do think he could be a decent 3rd OF on any team.

Padres Beat Rangers

Padres Trade: Adam Eaton, Akinori Otsuka, Billy Killian
Rangers Trade: Chris Young, Adrian Gonzalez, Terrmel Sledge

This time the big name in the trade is Eaton, and this time he again goes to the loser. Eaton has been touted as a possible ace from the moment he was drafted, but aside from a stint before a finger injury last year he has consistently disappointed. Maybe he'll put it all together this season, but regardless he will be a FA next year and will be wanting around 10 million a year.

Also coming to the Rangers is a pretty good relief pitcher, Otsuka. Otsuka is actually the big prize for the Rangers as in his rookie year he was absolutely fantastic. Last year discounting a couple of appearances with the Diamondbacks he again had a great year, but counting those appearances he had a slightly above average year. Unfortunately like all the other Japanese pitchers before him it may be just a matter of time before major league hitters figure his style out and hit him as well, but more then likely he'll play somewhere between his 2004 and 2005 season for quite a few years, and he is going to be under contract for 4 more years.

Billy Killian is useless to the Rangers. He is a below average catching prospect going to a team who already has Teagarden, Laird, and Nikeas... ie he's useless.

To the Padres you have Chris Young. Chris Young was not a very heralded prospect, but last year in his rookie year he performed well. (4.26 ERA, 1.26 WHIP) In fact considering the ballparks it was as good as any season in Eaton's career especially when comparing their respective WHIPs. To make Young look like an even better deal, whoever controls Young will have him for the next 5 years!

Adrian Gonzalez was selected 1st in the 2000 draft and a couple of years ago was good enough to acquire a closer, Ugueth Urbina. He has done nothing to tarnish his reputation over the past few two years and has been constantly compared to Mark Grace as the worst he could be... his most optimistic comparision is with Rafael Palmeiro. (although if history is any indication he might need some "help" to be that good) Either way unless any unforseen injury hits he should be a good 1st basemen for a long time.

Sledge evidently was acquired to be traded... (see above trade)

In the short term, Texas may win this trade. If Eaton breaks out and performs well at Arlington and Otsuka continues to baffle hitters in 2006 it possibly may even lead to the first playoff appearance since the A-Rod era started. Nevertheless, Young is signed for 5 more years and has already shown to be as good as Eaton is now, Adrian Gonzalez is a top flight prospect that is under contract for another 6 years and should be a good 1st basemen much longer then that, and Sledge very well could be a dependable OF on a major league team. The only way this deal will even look halfway decent for Texas in the next few years is if Texas can sign Eaton long term.

Nats, Padres, Rangers, shoot...

Whatever Happened to... Matt Anderson

What I'm going to do in this segment is talk about players who for various reasons never lived up to their potential. I'll be focusing on players from the early 90's to present day, some who still have some chance to rebound and some who have been out of baseball for awhile. If you have any requests for a particular player then please tell me.

Before the 1998 season the Detroit Tigers had two promising young relief pitchers who practically every pundit and expert agreed would become successful closers... Francisco Cordero and Matt Anderson.

Cordero in 1999 posted a breakout year in AA, striking out 58 batters in 52 1/3 innings pitched with a 1.38 ERA in the process. He then proceeded to pitch respectably in a middle relief role at the end of 1999 for Detroit still striking out a batter an inning and keeping his ERA in the lower half of the 3's. His only sign of weakness was he was walking almost as many as he struck out while in the majors, but in the minors his WHIP was 1.09 showing that he had some potential to conquer his walk problems in the future.

Matt Anderson had a breath-taking 1st pro season in 1998 zooming up through high A to the majors in one season. In the minors he posted ERA's of 0.69 in the Florida State League and 0.60 in AA. He combined for 45 strikeouts in 41 innings in the two minor league levels he played at, and posted WHIPs equal to or less then 1.00 in both of his stops. In the majors he showed everybody what his potential was by striking out a batter an inning in his 44 IP and keeping his ERA down at 3.27. His only sign of problems was his walk totals as he did walk 31 batters in the process. Regardless though Anderson looked like the real deal coming off of 1998.

Anderson's 1999 wasn't so encouraging. Like Cordero he split his time between the majors in the minors, in his case AAA in the minors. Also like Anderson he posted quality strike out numbers 35 strike outs in 38 innings in AAA and 32 strikeouts in 38 innings in the majors. Just like Francisco Cordero, Anderson had trouble with his walks in the majors walking 35 batters, 3 walks more then his strikeout totals. Unlike Cordero, Anderson had problems walking batters in the minors also, walking 31 batters and ruining his WHIP (1.66 in minors, 1.79 in majors) in the process.

Before 2000 started the Tigers decided to improve their offense by acquiring slugger Juan Gonzalez. However to do this Texas demanded one of their closing prospects. Eventually they hammered out a deal sending Francisco Cordero to the Rangers. After two learning years Cordero lived up to his expectations by becoming a very important part of the Rangers bullpen in 2002 and becoming the full time Ranger closer in 2003 after the trade of Ugueth Urbina.

Unfortunately for Detroit Matt Anderson did not live up to his expectations. Despite having the more dominant "stuff" of the two closers and being the first overall pick of the 1997 draft, Anderson never really learned to put movement behind his 101 mph fastball and his numbers would never show the promise of his extraordinary pro rookie season.

In 2000, Anderson stayed in the majors from start to finish as a middle reliever. He posted adequate numbers all around (4.72 ERA, 8.60 K/9, 1.43 WHIP) which was definitely an improvement from the 1999 season. He still walked too much as 45 walks in 74 1/3 innings pitched is not that great, but still it was very encouraging for the Tigers. It was so encouraging that they decided to take a chance on him in 2001 to be their closer.

2001 came around and looking on the outside it looked like Matt Anderson had successful tore off his closer of the future label and became a full fledged closer. Sure his 22 saves look good on the outside... sure he finally lowered his walk rate to an acceptable total (2.89/9 innings)... and sure he kept his strikeout rate high (8.36/9 innings). Pretty much Anderson looked like he was well on his way of being the next Billy Wagner. Unfortunately a new problem had come on the scene. A new problem that kept his ERA up at 4.82 and would gradually get worse in worse. The new problem was that Anderson had begun to get hittable to the rate of a hit per inning. Yes he still had his 101 mph fastball, but it still had no movement. When he came up hitters just couldn't catch up with it that often, but now that he had been up for four years that fastball just wasn't that surprising to the hitters. Even worse his hard breaking ball that he always had still wasn't staying in the strikezone enough so he had to rely on his heater. Nevertheless everyone assumed Anderson was on the right track and would become a dominant closer.

Then came the year it all broke down, 2002. Anderson suffered a shoulder injury early in the year that limited him to 12 miserable innings. By 2003 he was still expected to be Detroit's closer but a number of changes had happened all because of a new arm angle he took up to reduce stress in his throwing shoulder. First of all his 101 mph heater was gone, and in its place was a much more pedestrian mid-90's version. Second of all his new arm angle made it even tougher for him to put movement behind his fastball, so all he had was a straight 94 mph fastball which is very hittable in the major leagues. His stats show this as out as his hits per 9 innings soared to 9.64/9 innings in the majors and 11.84/9 innings in AA. In the major leagues he just couldn't strike out players the way he used to as his rate plunged to 5.01/9 innings.

By 2004, at 27 years old when most players are just reaching their primes, Matt Anderson looked like he was all washed up. He suffered more injuries and stayed in the minors all year and unfortunately for him was just as hittable as he was in 2003. After 2004 he became a FA and signed with the Colorado Rockies.

Amazingly last year Anderson began pitching decent in the minors. His strikeout totals climbed back to 8.81/9 innings and he kept batters to less then 7 hits/9 innings, even his walks weren't that bad at 4.02/9 innings. All of those were very encouraging signs. His ERA was alright at 4.21 and his WHIP was great for him at 1.21. Even more encouraging is that he did all of this in Colorado Springs one of the best hitting ballparks in minor league baseball. In midseason he began to get some press as a possible closing candidate for Colorado and the Rockies subsequently brought him up. Unfortunately he failed miserably in the ten innings he pitched at Colorado giving up 17 earned runs off of 19 hits and 11 walks which gave him a horrendous 3.00 WHIP.

What does the future hold for Matt Anderson. Well if 2005 was any indication he has begun to harness his new arm angle. Evidently his breaking ball has improved and he has developed some movement on his fastball which may allow him to become a decent relief pitcher. Sure he will probably never become a dominant closer nor will he ever live up to his draft status, but he can still have a respectable career in the major leagues.

Welcome to my first blog

For many years now I have shoved my opinions about baseball on any willing ear, but I never thought I would start a blog about it. However I've finally decided I'll never get my dream job as an ESPN analyst or become the Texas Ranger's GM so I've decided to create this blog instead.

First things first though. You are probably wondering what my credentials are. Why should anybody in their right mind listen to me?

I have to admit I'm not an expert nor do I have any insider information. All I can do is comment on what I see or hear about. So if you're expecting Baseball America from me you've come to the wrong place.

However what I can give you is an honest fan's opinion. I have been a baseball fanatic ever since I can remember. While I am a Texas Rangers fan, first and foremost I'm a baseball fan. Unlike many blogs around the internet that's sole use is to praise or condemn the hometeam's every move, that is not my intention here. First of all I think it is crazy to praise ever move a team makes as even the best GM makes mistakes. (Beane is really going to regret the Loiaza signing) Plus, it is equally stupid to act like a team is so inept they never make any decent transaction... even the Devil Rays make good moves sometimes. (Kazmir anyone?) Secondly I follow baseball everywhere, not just the Rangers, so expect everything from top prospect lists, (with my analysis, no copy and pasting of somebody else's opinion) trade analysis, FA pickups, fantasy baseball advice, and any other random information that I think is interesting.

Am I a stathead or a traditional scouting guy? Way back in high school I was pretty much a walking encyclopedia of baseball statistics. Nowadays I still admit to swing to the stat side. I'm a big believer in on-base percentage, slugging percentage, WHIP, and K/9 and a cynic in regards to batting average, runs, RBI's, and wins (for a pitcher). Amazingly these theories were ingrained in my skull even before the world had heard about Moneyball. (Although since I did not have a blog then you will just have to believe me) Statistics though can't show everything. Scouting is still integral for baseball and although I can't go and see every player in the major and minor leagues I will incorporate whatever I do see into all of my analysis I give out.

Hopefully I haven't bored you to tears by now with this introduction. Anyway, thank you very much for coming to this site. Hopefully I've gotten you at least a little bit interested. If you have any suggestions please email me at tranger85@yahoo.com